Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q2 All cattle ranchers dislike long winters

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters.

Conclusion

No ski resort owners are lawyers. SRO → ~L

Evidence

All cattle ranchers dislike long CR → ~LW winters.

All SRO's like long winters SRO → LW (b/c profits)

Some lawyers are cattle Some L's = CR ranchers.

Evaluate

We can actually already infer that some lawyers are not ski resort owners, but we're trying to get to the idea that none of them are ski resort owners.

We're trying to prove that SRO → ~L or that L → ~SRO

So we want to scan this evidence looking for ways to prove ~L or ~SRO.

We have a chain of conditionals that ends in ~SRO. CR → ~LW → ~SRO

If we wanted to prove L → ~SRO, then we could use L → CR or L → ~LW

Goal

The most likely answer would reward us for adding a link to the existing chain,

CR → ~LW → ~SRO to get

L → CR → ~LW → ~SRO

All lawyers are cattle ranchers?

2.

Which one of the following statements, if true and added to those above, most supports the conclusion that no ski resort owners are lawyers?

  1. Some cattle ranchers are lawyers.

    Already Knew This

    Some statements are reversible. Since we already knew that some lawyers are cattle ranchers, we already knew that some cattle ranchers are lawyers.

    9% picked this

  2. Some people who dislike long

    Too Weak

    This says nothing about lawyers or ski resort owners, and the strength of "Some" is not going to help us prove a conclusion that "ZERO ski resort owners are lawyers".

    13% picked this

  3. Correct

    All lawyers are cattle ranchers.

    Why this is right

    All lawyers are cattle ranchers. All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. Thus, all lawyers dislike long winters. All ski resort owners like long winters, Thus, no lawyers are ski resort owners. Or if you prefer the formal look: CR → ~LW → ~SRO (evidence) + L → CR (answer) ------------------------------------- L → CR → ~LW → ~SRO (conclusion) SRO → LW → ~CR → ~L

    Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    61% picked this

  4. All people who dislike long

    Reverses Something We Know

    We knew that CR → ~LW and this tells us that ~LW → CR But this doesn't add on to what we already had and tell us anything about lawyers. CR → ~LW → ~SRO ~LW → CR = nothing useful.

    15% picked this

  5. All people with increasing profits

    Not Useful

    This doesn't tell us about "All lawyers" or "All ski resort owners", which means it's not going to allow us to prove the conclusion. Getting a rule that says Increasing Profits → SKO doesn't help us to assemble a logical path from SKO to ~L.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free